3

Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court justice

The new voice of originalism

3

For half a century, Republican presidents have been surprised when their Supreme Court picks didn’t turn out the way they expected: Gerald Ford’s legacy was the liberal John Paul Stevens; George H.W. Bush was disappointed by the squishiness of David Souter. But Donald Trump—as ideologically malleable as any president in recent memory—has surely succeeded where many of his GOP predecessors failed: Neil Gorsuch is a rock-solid conservative constitutionalist who has already shown self-confidence and flair in his first few months on the job.

Gorsuch’s ascension was an unlikelihood built atop an improbability. When Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell managed to keep the seat empty for an entire year, until a new president could offer a name. Against all expectations, that new president was Trump—no conservative ideologue, to be sure—who hewed faithfully to the list of conservative candidates he had promised to pick from during the campaign, and chose very wisely.

If Trump’s introduction to Washington this year continues to be rocky, Gorsuch’s couldn’t have gone more smoothly. Inarguably thoughtful, decent and qualified, the Colorado native made a winsome first impression when Trump unveiled him, then affably ran through his meetings with senators (occasionally pausing to greet a dog or fist-bump a kid in the hallway). The old Washington hands tasked with shepherding him to confirmation were impressed by his sure-footedness and preparation.

Gorsuch knows what he believes about the law, and why. For decades, conservatives have pushed to tether judges tightly to the text of statutes and the Constitution, the school of interpretation known as originalism. Championed in the 1980s most prominently by Ronald Reagan’s attorney general Ed Meese and by Judge Robert Bork, originalism got institutional heft with the creation of the Federalist Society in 1982, and its best advertisement in Scalia’s memorably trenchant and acerbic opinions.

Gorsuch is the progeny of this originalist project. He attended law school after the Federalist Society had gotten its start and when Scalia was already on the Supreme Court. The late justice’s work had a formative impact: Gorsuch described breaking down in tears on a ski slope when he heard the news of Scalia’s death, and his judicial philosophy—“to apply the law as it is,” as Gorsuch put it in a speech before his nomination—proceeds from the same premises as his predecessor’s.

Gorsuch hasn’t been shy about asserting himself and his beliefs in his early days as a justice. In his very first oral argument, a case involving a technical question about federal employment law, he announced his arrival with a notably lively performance: When the lawyer for an aggrieved federal employee argued that he wasn’t asking the court to break new ground in interpreting a statue, Gorsuch shot back that no, the lawyer wanted the court to “just continue to make it up.”

Gorsuch’s writings for the court have been snappy, accessible and clear, and he is comfortable in dissent. He has already departed from the majority on guns, gay marriage and Trump’s travel ban. In that employment case, only he and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Gorsuch pointedly reminding the court, “If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.” This sentiment picks up the intellectual baton, and some flourish too, from a cutting remark on the last page of the last opinion Scalia ever wrote: “As we know, the Court can decree anything.”

Gorsuch is replacing a legend who, by force of intellect and personality, shifted the conversation on the law in this country. There will never be another Nino Scalia. But all indications are that Gorsuch will be fearless, and that the 50-year-old will have an impact on the court for decades to come. —Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor for Politico Magazine.